Psychotropic prescribing after hospital discharge in survivors of critical illness, a retrospective cohort study (2012–2019)

Background:Many people survive critical illness with the burden of new or worsened mental health issues and sleep disturbances. We examined the frequency of psychotropic prescribing after critical illness, comparing critical care to non-critical care hospitalised survivors, and whether this varied in important subgroups.Methods:This retrospective cohort study included 23,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care hospitalised adults from 2012 through 2019 in Lothian, Scotland, who survived to discharge.Results:One-third of critical care survivors (32 7527/23,340) received a psychotropic prescription within 90 days after hospital discharge (25 14hypnotics; 4mania medicines). In contrast, 1554,589/367,185) of non-critical care survivors received a psychotropic prescription (12 5hypnotics; 2mania medicines). Among patients without psychotropic prescriptions within 180 days prior to hospitalisation, after hospital discharge, the critical care group had a higher incidence of psychotropic prescription (10.3 1610/15,609) compared with the non-critical care group (3.2 9743/307,429); unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.39, 95 3.22–3.57. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk remained elevated (adjusted HR 2.03, 95 1.91–2.16), persisted later in follow-up (90–365 days; adjusted HR 1.38, 95 1.30–1.46), and was more pronounced in those without recorded comorbidities (adjusted HR 3.49, 95 3.22–3.78).Conclusions:Critical care survivors have a higher risk of receiving psychotropic prescriptions than hospitalised patients, with a significant proportion receiving benzodiazepines and other hypnotics. Future research should focus on the requirement for and safety of psychotropic medicines in survivors of critical illness, to help guide policy for clinical practice

Polypharmacy in HIV: recent insights and future directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Update findings regarding polypharmacy among people with HIV (PWH) and consider what research is most needed. RECENT FINDINGS: Among PWH, polypharmacy is common, occurs in middle age, and is predominantly driven by nonantiretroviral (ARV) medications. Many studies have demonstrated strong associations between polypharmacy and receipt of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMS), but few have considered actual adverse events. Falls, delirium, pneumonia, hospitalization, and mortality are associated with polypharmacy among PWH and risks remain after adjustment for severity of illness. SUMMARY: Polypharmacy is a growing problem and mechanisms of injury likely include potentially inappropriate medications, total drug burden, known pairwise drug interactions, higher level drug interactions, drug--gene interactions, and drug--substance use interactions (alcohol, extra-medical prescription medication, and drug use). Before we can effectively design interventions, we need to use observational data to gain a better understanding of the modifiable mechanisms of injury. As sicker individuals take more medications, analyses must account for severity of illness. As self-report of substance use may be inaccurate, direct biomarkers, such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth) for alcohol are needed. Large samples including electronic health records, genetics, accurate measures of substance use, and state of the art statistical and artificial intelligence techniques are needed to advance our understanding and inform clinical management of polypharmacy in PWH

Risk of 16 cancers across the full glycemic spectrum: a population-based cohort study using the UK Biobank.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is observed to increase cancer risk, leading to hypothesized direct effects of either hyperglycemia or medication. We investigated associations between glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) across the whole glycemic spectrum and incidence of 16 cancers in a population sample with comprehensive adjustment for risk factors and medication. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Linked data from the UK Biobank and UK cancer registry for all individuals with baseline HbA1c and no history of cancer at enrollment were used. Incident cancer was based on International Classification of Diseases - 10th Edition diagnostic codes. Age-standardized incidence rates were estimated by HbA1c category. Associations between HbA1c, modeled as a restricted cubic spline, and cancer risk were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 378 253 individuals with average follow-up of 7.1 years, 21 172 incident cancers occurred. While incidence for many of the 16 cancers was associated with hyperglycemia in crude analyses, these associations disappeared after multivariable adjustment, except for pancreatic cancer (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.98 for 55 vs 35 mmol/mol), and a novel finding of an inverse association between HbA1c and premenopausal breast cancer (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.60 for 25 vs 35 mmol/mol; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94 for 45 vs 35 mmol/mol), not observed for postmenopausal breast cancer. Adjustment for diabetes medications had no appreciable impact on HRs for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from pancreatic cancer, we did not demonstrate any independent positive association between HbA1c and cancer risk. These findings suggest that the potential for a cancer-inducing, direct effect of hyperglycemia may be misplaced

Pharmacogenomics driven decision support prototype with machine learning: A framework for improving patient care

Introduction: A growing number of healthcare providers make complex treatment decisions guided by electronic health record (EHR) software interfaces. Many interfaces integrate multiple sources of data (e.g., labs, pharmacy, diagnoses) successfully, though relatively few have incorporated genetic data. Method: This study utilizes informatics methods with predictive modeling to create and validate algorithms to enable informed pharmacogenomic decision-making at the point of care in near real-time. The proposed framework integrates EHR and genetic data relevant to the patient's current medications including decision support mechanisms based on predictive modeling. We created a prototype with EHR and linked genetic data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the US. The EHR data included diagnoses, medication fills, and outpatient clinic visits for 2,600 people with HIV and matched uninfected controls linked to prototypic genetic data (variations in single or multiple positions in the DNA sequence). We then mapped the medications that patients were prescribed to medications defined in the drug-gene interaction mapping of the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium's (CPIC) level A (i.e., sufficient evidence for at least one prescribing action) guidelines that predict adverse events. CPIC is a National Institute of Health funded group of experts who develop evidence based pharmacogenomic guidelines. Preventable adverse events (PAE) can be defined as a harmful outcome from an intervention that could have been prevented. For this study, we focused on potential PAEs resulting from a medication-gene interaction. Results: The final model showed AUC scores of 0.972 with an F1 score of 0.97 with genetic data as compared to 0.766 and 0.73 respectively, without genetic data integration. Discussion: Over 98% of people in the cohort were on at least one medication with CPIC level a guideline in their lifetime. We compared predictive power of machine learning models to detect a PAE between five modeling methods: Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), K Nearest neighbors (KNN), and Decision Tree. We found that XGBoost performed best for the prototype when genetic data was added to the framework and improved prediction of PAE. We compared area under the curve (AUC) between the models in the testing dataset

Safety of Gabapentin Prescribed for Any Indication in a Large Clinical Cohort of 571,718 US Veterans with and without Alcohol Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is prescribed for seizures and pain and has efficacy for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) starting at doses of 900 milligrams per day (mg/d). Recent evidence suggests safety concerns associated with gabapentin including adverse neurologic effects. Individuals with hepatitis C (HCV), HIV, or AUD may be at increased risk due to comorbidities and potential medication interactions. METHODS: We identified patients prescribed gabapentin for ? 60 days for any indication between 2002 and 2015. We propensity-score matched each gabapentin-exposed patient with up to 5 gabapentin-unexposed patients. We followed patients for 2 years or until diagnosed with (i) falls or fractures, or (ii) altered mental status using validated ICD-9 diagnostic codes. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rates and relative risk (RR) of these adverse events in association with gabapentin exposure overall and stratified by age, race/ethnicity, sex, HCV, HIV, AUD, and dose. RESULTS: Incidence of falls or fractures was 1.81 per 100 person-years (PY) among 140,310 gabapentin-exposed and 1.34/100 PY among 431,408 gabapentin-unexposed patients (RR 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.44). Incidence of altered mental status was 1.08/100 PY among exposed and 0.97/100 PY among unexposed patients, RR of 1.12 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.20). Excess risk of falls or fractures associated with gabapentin exposure was observed in all subgroups except patients with HCV, HIV, or AUD; however, these groups had elevated incidence regardless of exposure. There was a clear dose-response relationship for falls or fractures with highest risk observed among those prescribed ? 2,400 mg/d (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.40). Patients were at increased risk for altered mental status at doses 600 to 2,399 mg/d; however, low number of events in the highest dose category limited power to detect a statistically significant association ? 2,400 mg/d. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin is associated with falls or fractures and altered mental status. Clinicians should be monitoring gabapentin safety, especially at doses ? 600 mg/d, in patients with and without AUD

Covid-19 Testing, Hospital Admission, and Intensive Care Among 2,026,227 United States Veterans Aged 54-75 Years.

IMPORTANCE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), an evolving pandemic. Limited data are available characterizing SARS-Cov-2 infection in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To determine associations between demographic and clinical factors and testing positive for coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19+), and among Covid-19+ subsequent hospitalization and intensive care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study including all patients tested for Covid-19 between February 8 and March 30, 2020, inclusive. We extracted electronic health record data from the national Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, on 2,026,227 patients born between 1945 and 1965 and active in care. Exposures: Demographic data, comorbidities, medication history, substance use, vital signs, and laboratory measures. Laboratory tests were analyzed first individually and then grouped into a validated summary measure of physiologic injury (VACS Index). Main Outcomes and Measures: We evaluated which factors were associated with Covid-19+ among all who tested. Among Covid-19+ we identified factors associated with hospitalization or intensive care. We identified independent associations using multivariable and conditional multivariable logistic regression with multiple imputation of missing values. RESULTS: Among Veterans aged 54-75 years, 585/3,789 (15.4%) tested Covid-19+. In adjusted analysis (C-statistic=0.806) black race was associated with Covid-19+ (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.79-5.78) and the association remained in analyses conditional on site (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.89-3.46). In adjusted models, laboratory abnormalities (especially fibrosis-4 score [FIB-4] >3.25 OR 8.73, 95% CI 4.11-18.56), and VACS Index (per 5-point increase OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.43-1.84) were strongly associated with hospitalization. Associations were similar for intensive care. Although significant in unadjusted analyses, associations with comorbid conditions and medications were substantially reduced and, in most cases, no longer significant after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Black race was strongly associated with Covid-19+, but not with hospitalization or intensive care. Among Covid-19+, risk of hospitalization and intensive care may be better characterized by laboratory measures and vital signs than by comorbid conditions or prior medication exposure

Patterns of COVID-19 testing and mortality by race and ethnicity among United States veterans: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that racial and ethnic minority communities around the world are experiencing a disproportionate burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated racial and ethnic disparities in patterns of COVID-19 testing (i.e., who received testing and who tested positive) and subsequent mortality in the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This retrospective cohort study included 5,834,543 individuals receiving care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs; most (91%) were men, 74% were non-Hispanic White (White), 19% were non-Hispanic Black (Black), and 7% were Hispanic. We evaluated associations between race/ethnicity and receipt of COVID-19 testing, a positive test result, and 30-day mortality, with multivariable adjustment for a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics including comorbid conditions, health behaviors, medication history, site of care, and urban versus rural residence. Between February 8 and July 22, 2020, 254,595 individuals were tested for COVID-19, of whom 16,317 tested positive and 1,057 died. Black individuals were more likely to be tested (rate per 1,000 individuals: 60.0, 95% CI 59.6-60.5) than Hispanic (52.7, 95% CI 52.1-53.4) and White individuals (38.6, 95% CI 38.4-38.7). While individuals from minority backgrounds were more likely to test positive (Black versus White: odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% CI 1.85-2.01, p < 0.001; Hispanic versus White: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.74-1.94, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality did not differ by race/ethnicity (Black versus White: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17, p = 0.74; Hispanic versus White: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, p = 0.94). The disparity between Black and White individuals in testing positive for COVID-19 was stronger in the Midwest (OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.41-2.95, p < 0.001) than the West (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.39, p < 0.001). The disparity in testing positive for COVID-19 between Hispanic and White individuals was consistent across region, calendar time, and outbreak pattern. Study limitations include underrepresentation of women and a lack of detailed information on social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, we found that Black and Hispanic individuals are experiencing an excess burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection not entirely explained by underlying medical conditions or where they live or receive care. There is an urgent need to proactively tailor strategies to contain and prevent further outbreaks in racial and ethnic minority communities

HbA1c and brain health across the entire glycaemic spectrum.

AIM: To understand the relationship between HbA1c and brain health across the entire glycaemic spectrum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from the UK Biobank cohort consisting of 500,000 individuals aged 40-69?years. HbA1c and diabetes diagnosis were used to define baseline glycaemic categories. Our outcomes included incident all-cause dementia, vascular dementia (VD), Alzheimer's dementia (AD), hippocampal volume (HV), white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, cognitive function and decline. The reference group was normoglycaemic individuals (HbA1c ?35 & <42 mmol/mol). Our maximum analytical sample contained 449,973 individuals with complete data. RESULTS: Prediabetes and known diabetes increased incident VD (HR 1.54; 95% CI = 1.04, 2.28 and HR 2.97; 95% CI = 2.26, 3.90, respectively). Known diabetes increased all-cause and AD risk (HR 1.91; 95% CI = 1.66, 2.21 and HR 1.84; 95% CI = 1.44, 2.36, respectively). Prediabetes and known diabetes elevated the risks of cognitive decline (OR 1.42; 1.48, 2.96 and OR 1.39; 1.04, 1.75, respectively). Prediabetes, undiagnosed and known diabetes conferred higher WMH volumes (3%, 22% and 7%, respectively) and lower HV (36, 80 and 82?mm3 , respectively), whereas low-normal HbA1c had 1% lower WMH volume and 12?mm3 greater HV. CONCLUSION: Both prediabetes and known diabetes are harmful in terms of VD, cognitive decline and AD risks, as well as lower HV. Associations appeared to be somewhat driven by antihypertensive medication, which implies that certain cardiovascular drugs may ameliorate some of the excess risk. Low-normal HbA1c levels, however, are associated with more favourable brain health outcomes and warrant more in-depth investigation